# United States v. Marvin Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 20, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4589804

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 20, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Non Direct Criminal
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4589804

## Opinion text

Case: 20-60532 Document: 00515646805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2020

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 20-60532 November 20, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marvin R. Brown,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:14-CR-64-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In July 2016, Marvin R. Brown, federal prisoner # 17998-043, was
sentenced to a total of 240 months of imprisonment following his convictions
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60532 Document: 00515646805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2020

No. 20-60532

methamphetamine, and possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion to reduce his sentence, in which he sought
compassionate release based upon the COVID-19 pandemic and his
underlying medical condition of diabetes.
Brown argues that the district court abused its discretion when it
denied his motion because it weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors as they existed when he was sentenced rather than as they existed
when he filed his motion for compassionate release. Additionally, he
contends that the district court afforded insufficient weight to significant
factors such the deficient response by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to the
pandemic, the risk he faces as a diabetic during the pandemic, his subsequent
acceptance of responsibility, and his efforts at rehabilitation.
We review the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948
F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In conducting that review, we give deference
to the district court’s application of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Id. A
district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an error of
law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Id.
Brown’s arguments do not establish that the district court abused its
discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. His mere disagreement with
how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to
establish an abuse of discretion and “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.”
Id. at 694. It is evident from the district court’s decision that it considered
Brown’s arguments and determined that the balance of the § 3553(a) factors
did not favor a reduction in his sentence. It was not unreasonable for the
district court to afford greater weight to the seriousness of Brown’s
convictions, the amount of time served on his sentence, and the need for just

2
Case: 20-60532 Document: 00515646805 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/20/2020

No. 20-60532

punishment, than the weight it placed upon Brown’s postsentencing
rehabilitation, his medical issues, the impact of the pandemic at FCI Oakdale,
and the BOP’s response to the pandemic. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94;
§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A).
AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4589804. Public record. Not legal advice.